alan_woolnough

Hi Andy,

 

I think the size of your hide, and the amount of gear that you have inside with you, will have a lot to do with what sort of chair you use.

 

Ive got a couple of hides, for different situations. The biggest one is 4ft x 4ft x 4ft 6ins. I used to use a small anglers chair, which folded up. This was about 18" high, and quite comfortable for a couple of hours at a time, but your back will begin to ache, if you use one for long periods, as there is no back support.

 

If i use a hide for very long periods, i prefer to use a thick foam rubber mat on the floor. This would only work for you, if you peepholes and lens sleeve are at a suitable height for viewing from floor level.

 

Ive found hide photography to be a form of gymnastics, as my legs are often in strange positions after long periods in a confined space, but the more you do it, the easier it becomes. I think it is well worth the effort spending hours, cramped up, sometimes freezing cold, for possibly a few minutes of photography, as the results are often worlds apart from stalking type photography. Even if you spend hours, and get no photographs, the experience of living amoungst the wildlife, at close quarters, makes it worthwhile.

 

Sorry, my mind is wandering.

 

Cheers

Hello Jenny,

 

Ive done a lot of hide photography over the years, on the marshland near me, and i am often in the hide during twilight, and i know what you mean about the light at these times.

 

The birds you mention have distinctive shapes, and would make ideal subjects for silouette type images. this would probably be accomplished best by getting a higher viewpoint, and shooting downwards, in order to stop the image of the bird overlapping the dark background, and avoiding the sky area. This would also allow faster shutter speeds, than exposing for the detail in the birds, but retaining the colours reflected in the water.

 

As you mentioned trees, in the background, maybe you could gain some hight by climbing on one of these. If you use a hide/blind you may be able to get close enough to still shoot downwards.

 

I guess that you use a telephoto for most of your shots, but maybe a shorter lens might give a great overall shot if there is plenty of colour reflected in the water.

 

Thanks for posting this question, as it has given me some ideas, for some different type of shots.

 

Cheers

Hi Alex,

 

You noticed my deliberate mistake then.

Hello Gabriel,

 

I agree with Art, but i think you need to give more precise info, as this is a specialised area, and not one that im experienced in.

 

Are you intending on photographing flying creatures, such as, bats or owls, or badgers etc ??

 

Cheers

Hello all, as this forum is not very busy at the moment, i thought i

would post this question.

 

As wildlife/nature photographs, often have a story behind them,

sometimes a lot of planning and sometimes a lot of luck is involved.

Is anyone out there prepared to admit to any blunders they have made,

or scary moments, during their photographic days out.

 

Im not to proud to admit that ive made a few in the past, and

probably will, in the future.

 

In the UK, we dont have any wildlife, that would be dangerous to

humans, apart from one snake, and the odd stray dog. However, i did

once share my ,3ft x 3ft x 4ft hide with a nasty looking rat, for a

few minutes, while i was photographing snipe and water rail, in a

reed bed.

 

A few years ago, i heard that a pectoral sandpiper had been seen, on

the marshes near my home. I decided to take the week off work, and

erected my hide, in my usual place, in the hope of photographing it.

Over the following days, there was no sign of it, but while i had

been in my hide, i had noticed a kingfisher using a branch, on a tree

thirty meters away, and i decided i would gradually erect my hide

over there. A couple of days later, i was ready to photograph the

kingfisher, and while i was waiting for it to arrive on its usual

branch, i looked out of a peephole in my hide, and saw the sandpiper,

standing about 10ft from where my hide had been placed previously.[ i

never did manage to photograph it ]

 

Ive also erected my hide, unknowingly, on top of an ants nest, which

wasnt very clever of me.

 

When i was about fifteen [many years ago], i took a trip to my local

woods, with my first camera, in the hope of photographing fungi. I

searched for hours, for a suitable specimen, and finally found one.

As i got my tripod out of its case, i dropped it, guess where!!

 

Is anyone else prepared to admit any mistakes, or am i the only one

brave enough!!

 

Cheers

Valerie,

 

I have not got a clue, about skunks, as im in the UK.

 

But, i believe some animals, can not see the colour red. If this applies to skunks, then it might be possible to photograph them in black & white, with a red filter over the flash gun.

 

Ive never tried this myself, so i dont know if it is even possible to do !!!

 

Maybe there is someone out there, who has tried it, and can give you more detailed advice on this.

 

Cheers

Hi Jeffrey,

 

This is a big question, and i think it depends of which type of bird photography you do.

 

I can only speak for myself, as someone who concentrates on hide photography exclusivly.

 

As i only have the area in front of my hide, to worry about, i have found incident metering ideal. As i am mainly photographing small waders, from close range, the action is often fast & furious, and i am not sure that a spot reading would be a better option for me.

 

I usually take a reading before entering the hide, and then during the day, when i get a chance. Ive been doing it this way for many years now, so im able to make small adjustments as and when required.

 

Ive rarely had any problems with contrast etc, because the distance i am photographing from is within either, full, or fill in flash distance, if it becomes necessary.

 

In a nutshell, i think incident, spot, and reflected metering all have their pros and cons. I think is is worth getting as much advice as possible, making your choice, and sticking to it. Any cons in the above metering systems are soon overcome with experience.

 

cheers

Brian,

 

I cant help you, regarding the dales area. However what you have been told, is most likely correct.

 

I lived near Auchtermuchty in Fife, for a number of years. Although this was a small village, the dippers which appeared along the burns, often allowed a very close approach.

 

Even if you can not find the exact place you are looking for, in the dales, i would be very surprised if you did not see any, over a weekend.

 

When you do spot one, even if it flies off, it is worth waiting in this spot for a while. These birds have habits similar to kingfishers, in the fact that they will return to favourite spots during the course of the day.

 

Good luck with your trip

Hi Alain,

 

Yes, it is possible to get equal dof each side of the point of focus, although its difficult to get this precisely all of the time.

 

If, for example, you are photographing a bird, at twenty feet, and the bird is standing on ground that is sloping towards you at a certain angle, then yes it is possible. This also depends on the height you are photographing from.

 

Cheers Alan Woolnough

Hi gary,

 

Yes, this is not an uncommon thing with last generation pentax lenses.

 

I have a pentax smc 500mm lens with the same tint. it can be quite useful for distant views, as these scenes often have a blueness, due to utra violet etc.

 

in recent years i have been doing black & white photography, so it does not concern me. A number of years ago, when i did a lot of colour, i got round this problem by using film with a cool colour balance, like the old ektachrome 64.

 

I have also used cc filters sometimes, although you get a small light loss. Having said that, ive never found this tint to be a major problem. But i guess that depends on what subject you use the lens for.

 

Sorry i cant be of more help.

 

Alan Woolnough

Hello alain,

 

Yes i agree with all you have said, in fact you have said it better than i could.

 

To me, fieldcraft means putting the wildlife first, the photography comes second. Your experiences seem similar to mine.I often spend hours/days carefully introducing my hide into a carefully selected spot, only to to end up with, perhaps a few minutes of photography.

Although, those few minutes are usually worth the effort.

 

Ihope i didnt give the impresion that i am against the use of long teles. I use a 500mm lens as standard, although this is on 645 format, giving an angle of view similar to a 300/350mm lens on 35mm format.

 

I guess im very fortunate to live in an area where i can use a hide, and ,like you, i have never needed to use a teleconverter so far.

 

I think what prompted my original posting, was that a lot of mags/books, over recent years, tend to cram them full of images, with very little info on how they were achieved. I guess the editors think that this approach will sell more copys.

 

There is a hell of a lot of great mags/books out there, but how does a photographer, new to this branch of photography know, which is good/bad?

 

Thanks again

Alan Woolnough

Hi Jonathen,

 

Good points, but do you always have to sneak up?

 

 

I shoot a lot of small/medium sized waders from a hide. If a heron showed up, as often happens on the marshes near me, im pretty sure i can get head & shoulders shots.

 

Of course this all depends, as has been said, on various restrictions in your country/area and your particular approach to bird photography ie; stalking/hide/blind etc.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

It would be a sad world if we all had exactly the same views on everything

 

Cheers Alan woolnough

Hello all,

 

Having read many wildlife/bird photography magazines, with articles

from all over the world.

 

Why is it when a young amateur photographer with an old 300mm tele,

for example,poses a question like "how can i get larger images of

birds", 90% of the time,the FIRST answer is usually ,get a longer

lens!

 

Are birds always the same distance from the photographer?

 

Have all birds become the same size?

 

Is a heron the same size as a warbler?

 

Is the terrain the same worldwide?

 

Does, Bird in

flight,stalking,hide/blind,woodland,coastal,alpine,marshland,tidal

river,desert,etc,etc, photography require the same "go long"

equipment in all cases?

 

Yes, i know, you can only answer a question based on how much or

little info is given,and yes,

 

I am being very SARCASTIC.

 

But, is there a grain of truth here.

 

Obviously, there are many superb books & magazines out there, dealing

with this branch of photography. But, there is also a lot of second

rate stuff,suggesting "go long" is the only answer.

 

Is this the beginnings of a trend? [ possibly the pace of modern

life is a factor]

 

Here in the UK,there seems to be a growing number of budding young

amateur photographers,spending small fortunes on top notch super-

teles,in the hope of getting some great close up shots.

 

Will they get any?

 

Some will,some of the time.

 

Some wont,all of the time.

 

The ones who will get good shots CONSISTANTLY will not be relying

solely on their equipment, no, FIELDCRAFT will be a large factor.

An excellent example has recently been posted regarding "floating

hides". Take a look and you will see what i am getting at.

 

Pros & experienced wildlife photographers need not read any more of

what im saying.They will use what is required for the job,and may

hire gear for specific purposes. They also have client needs and

market forces to deal with. They will have paid their dues.

 

This is aimed at those Budding young photographers out there,

starting down this very varied road of bird photography.

 

Fieldcraft is often mentioned in landscape photography, usually a

hell of lot of planning is involved.

 

Why is it mentioned less often than telephoto equipment. Surely it is

a vital ingredient. Sure, fieldcraft is a never ending curve of

learning and some amateur photographers may think they can cut some

corners by upgrading now, rather than later. If it works for them,

Great.

 

But, are they absolutely CERTAIN that they can not squeeze that last

ounce of use out of their current gear by getting nearer,improving on

their techniques, and using a bit of cunning etc. Do they really need

that 600/800/1000mm lens just yet. Only they will know.

 

Why not hang on to your old 300mm a little bit longer, you may even

save some big money!

 

Why not treat the wife with it!

 

Or maybe, treat yourself, you deserve it.

 

If you decide it really is time to "go longer" then chose wisely.

As an amateur, you may not need top range gear, mid range is usually

excellent for our needs.

 

How do you think the pros from yesteryear got those great images!

Their gear probably doesnt compare to modern standards, with the

advance of technology etc, and yes, a lot of those images dont come

close to modern ones, but the very best of them are still superb!

They often used very short lenses to get these images, but

compensated by using fieldcraft.

 

There are as many branches of bird photography,as there are species,

so when you decide which future gear to chose, remember, "go long" is

not ALWAYS the answer.

 

As an amateur myself,i decided some twenty years ago that hide

photography was the way i was going to go, as it suited the terrain

in the area where i live [marshland/tidal river] so my techniques

will differ from, woodland,coastal,mountain etc.

 

Dont take my views as gospel, everyone must do whats right for them.

These are just my humble views from here in the UK.

 

There is much great advice on these forums, and i am not to proud to

use it [ yes, i am still learning after all these years], but it

would be great to hear the word FIELDCRAFT, used more often, maybe

even swap ideas, or even admit to past blunders [ ive made plenty of

them]

 

Now i must get back to my darkroom and check my trannies are dry.

I hope i didnt leave the lens cap on!

 

Cheers Alan Woolnough

 

 

Hi Chris

Very interesting posting,

 

Its about time we heard more about wildlife techniques than camera equipment. Obviously a lot of work goes on behind the scene, but is all to often, pushed to the background.

 

I live in the UK and most of my work is done from a hide.

lets hope we get some more like this.

 

Cheers Alan Woolnough

Hi there,

Very interesting views so far,so i may as well give you mine.

 

You say you dont do blinds! If you really want to increase your chances, it may be worth making an effort.

 

Ive spent the best part of thirty years sitting in my hide photographing birds.Hide photography, if you have learned your field craft gives many advantages, ie:

 

A well positioned hide allows you to use shorter focal lengths, my longest being 500 4.5, this is ideal for most waders,sandpipers etc at close range [maybe 12 feet]

 

If the weather where you are is anything like the uk [rain & often low light] you can carry on shooting using slow film with a couple of strategicaly placed flash guns .

 

You are less limited as to which focal lengths to use, as with a bit of planning, you can place your hide suitably to capture images of birds that suit your particular lens.

 

And of course, it is a fantastic experience just to sit within a few feet of the birds while they carry on with their lives.

 

You have probably realised that i shoot film!

 

No matter, all that i have said will also apply to digital.

 

Which ever course you decide to take, i wish you luck.

 

Alan Woolnough

Yes i get your drift,

 

According to a book that i have,

 

The angle of view of your 200mm 6x6 lens is roughly equivalent to a 135mm 35mm lens.

 

A 150mm 6x6 lens equivalent is a 90mm lens

 

An 80mm 6x6 lens equivalent is just under 50mm

 

Some lenses do not really have exact equivalent prime lenses,unless you put zoom lenses into the equation.

 

good luck

 

Alan Woolnough

Hi Javier,

 

I am living in Cumbria now,but i spent most of my life in london.

 

Not sure which branch of wildlife you are interested in.

It makes no difference really,as london is crawling with wild life.

 

There are many superb nature reserves,most with hides strategicly placed for viewing.

 

I spent my first 30 years or so around the north kent marshes,and the lee valley area,as has been mentioned.

 

Its well worth joining a local group to gain some knowledge [even us old timers can still learn]

 

If you finally decide to get into bird photography,as i did,my best advise is to get your own personal hide and approach local landowners,whose land adjoins a nature reserve,and ask if you can erect your hide on his/her property.

 

You will find this more productive photographicaly,because most hides on nature reserves are really only suitable for viewing.

 

Anyway good luck

 

Alan Woolnough

Hi Brad,

For what its worth,i agree with a lot of the above regarding tc.

Far better to get a prime lens.

Its worth looking on the second hand market,there are a lot of bargains to be had.

You did not say what branch of wildlife photography you will be concentrating on.

 

I do a lot of bird photography,mainly from my hide.

Ive got a 500mm & 300mm which ive found ideal.

I think the 300mm is the most versatile as it is ideal for birds in flight aswell as for use in a hide.

It can also be usefull for long range shots of landscapes if weather conditions are right.

 

Alan Woolnough

Hi Dane,

I pretty much agree with the responses above.

 

You have a great 35mm system already,so i would take the plunge and go to 645.

The second hand market is bulging with goodys.

I have never regretted doing this,although there is one drawback.

I had built up a collection of great landscape shots from my 35mm days,but since switching to 645,they dont come close to matching the quality,and so they are relegated to the back of the cupboard.

 

I found that because 645 only gives you 15 frames,i tended to take my time over shots i was taking,hence,greatly improving my chances of a decent result.

 

As for the digital route,

This reminds me of the time when home computers started appearing on the mass market ie by the time you had bought one,it was already out of date.

If you do go down that route,i would wait until the novelty wears off a bit,and then decide.

 

Alan Woolnough

Hi Lawrence

I agree with one of your earlier replies suggesting a shoulder support.

I used a 500mm 4.5 on a shoulder support very effectivly for years.

I think the secret is to match your subject to the equipment you are using.For example:large slow flying birds such as herons,owls,buzzards,swans and maybe flocks of waders in flight.

 

As has already been mentioned,you can use slower shutter speeds when panning,which is usefull as you are often shooting onto the shaded side of the bird.

I do not know if you have a power winder on your camera,i have not found it to be essential,but it is handy.

As for birds on the ground,it is worth the effort using a hide.I have used one for years photographing waders,often from about six feet which is a fantastic experience.

Your 400mm lens is an ideal size for this type of work,especially if you place your hide in a place where birds of the size that suit that focal length are likely to arrive.

I spent years stalking birds and getting,what i thought were great shots,but they dont compare to hide photography shots.

Another advantage is that you can shoot in all weathers,using slow or medium speed film because the birds will be in reach of a flash gun or guns.

You will see threads which say 600mm plus tc are the only way to go.I have always found 500mm to be plenty,and for small birds,from a carefully placed hide 300mm is often ideal

 

So after all that,i would stick with what you have got,and go for birds which suit that lens

 

Hope i havent bored you to death

 

Alan Woolnough

Hi Pete. Ive had the Pentax 500mm/4.5 for a few years now,which i used on my pentax lx. I changed to mamiya 645 a couple of years ago and had the pentax lens adapted to fit the mamiya. I do not know if pentax make an adapter for this purpose,but it is possible to have one made.One of your earlier replies said it is not possible to get infinity because of the distance between lens mount and film plane.This is not the case with this lens because the rear section [which swivels the lens]is removable which gives you another 30mm or so to the film plane.It does not matter that you dispense with that section as the lens can be swivelled in its tripod collar. I sent the rear section to a company near me[sRB in Luton UK]and told them which camera body i would be using it on ,and they made it for me.I think it cost about 80 pounds.It works perfectly,focusing on infinity and although it is working on a larger format,there is no vignetting.It is well worth getting an adapter made for this lens as you will end up with a fast 500mm lens for half the price of the equivalent medium format lens.I hope this is of some help,and excuse my typing[i am a bit new to keyboards] Alan Woolnough